The Patriot Opinion

Faith or Fear?

2008-11-03T12:17:00.002-05:00

Tomorrow is election day. It’s the day when much of America will turn out to cast their vote for the next President of the United States, among other offices. (Maybe I’ll post one day about the Electoral College, but not today.)

The throng of voters will include the most extreme liberals and the most committed conservatives; Christians and practicing witches; professional murderers and clergy; upstanding pillars of the community and welfare scam artists.

Every ideology will be well represented, from Marxism to Christianity and everything in between.

The interesting thing, though, is that the vast majority of them will probably vote for a socialist.

They will cast their vote for a man who is either wholly ignorant of our Constitution and the ideas behind it, or is actually hostile to those very ideas;

A man who has violated his oath of office time and time again;

Who has introduced, cosponsored, and supported legislation designed to abridge, infringe upon, and trample our God-given rights into the ground;

Who has robbed us of our hard-earned money for unconstitutional and often immoral purposes;

Who plays the political game well, catering one minute to those who want to see a return to Constitutionality in one particular area and the next to those who would see it destroyed altogether;

Whose policies drive us closer to amalgamation with the rest of the world under one tyrannical government that will eventually be run by Antichrist himself;

In short, a man who, if elected, will further destroy the United States of America.

Why will the American people vote for such a man?

Fear.

Combined with ignorance, fear has enslaved the majority of the world population for most—if not all—of history.

Fear of what will happen if they don’t vote for the “Party’s Annointed”.

In Iraq not too long ago, it was fear that they would be poisoned, shot, or tortured.

Today in America, it’s fear that “something terrible” might happen, although most of the terrible things have already happened under the administrations of past “Annointed Ones”.

Yes, most of America will be too scared to vote for a candidate who is actually qualified;

A candidate who both understands the Constitution, and fears the God before whom he would, if elected, swear an oath to uphold that legal document.

They will instead vote for a socialist. Some will vote for the one named Barack Obama, others will vote for the one named John McCain. Both are guilty of the evils listed above and many more.

Mark my words, the two may do it a little differently, but both of them will carry on the work of destruction that has driven this once great nation to its knees before the heel of tyranny.

Is there yet any man with the courage and faith in God to take a stand? As John Quincy Adams said, “duty is ours; results are God’s”.

God has been ever faithful to answer the cries of the righteous; those who follow His precepts and stand against the workers of iniquity.

He likewise has nothing but harsh words for those who bow to the reasoning of men, cowering before the wicked and calling for ignoble flight like the ten spies who proclaimed that the course ordered by God was—to use the modern vernacular—“not viable.”

In case you’re still shaking your head, hands over your ears yelling “faithfaithfaithfaithfaith!” remember that faith isn’t following the broad path to destruction and praying that God will change its course, faith is taking the narrow path and trusting that God can handle the rest.

If you want to see what a qualified candidate looks like, look here: www.Baldwin08.com

A Disturbing Metaphor

2008-05-21T22:24:00.000-04:00

It’s not an uncommon sight. A Church building of one denominational persuasion or another, parking lot adorned with a couple of busses used for ferrying Church groups around for ministry or entertainment.

These busses are often retired “school busses” and no wonder. I’m sure that the Church gets a great deal on them, and they certainly have plenty of seating capacity.

Sadly though, this picture of former government indoctrination facility transportation being painted over (sometimes only partially at that) and called a “Church bus” is a perfect metaphor for what’s going on inside most of our “Churches” today.

We import pagan doctrines, paint them with religious clichés—only some of which actually have truth to them—and call them “Christian”.

I guess we can’t be bothered to take our ideas straight from God’s Word anymore. Or maybe it’s just because God lived two thousand years ago and didn’t know what life would be like here in the twenty-first century.

(If you can’t detect the raging sarcasm in that statement, then I suggest that you completely and permanently abandon all metaphorical and/or figurative phraseology as a means of articulation. And don’t even think about diplomacy as a career option; you’ll start the next world war.)

No, there’s nothing wrong with a Church getting a good deal on a bus. There is something wrong, however, with getting a “deal” on their doctrine. When a pastor stops after “render unto Caesar…” you’re hearing official State doctrine.

When a pastor relies on what he has been taught in “Bible college”, “divinity school”, or “seminary”, rather than trusting completely in the Word of God to the complete exclusion of all else—including so-called “experts” who deny the plain words from God’s mouth—there is something wrong.

When you have “Christians” who have to justify and explain away portions of Scripture in order to defend their beliefs—often referring to the above mentioned “experts” in the process—you have a problem.

When you have Churches pressuring parents to ignore Biblical mandates regarding family size, child training, and educational decisions, you have a problem.

What can we do about this problem?

First, challenge conventional “wisdom”. Go look at Scripture. Does it really say what you’ve always been told that it says?

What does it say that the Sunday school teacher skips over? Stop rejecting the obvious meaning of a text because of the implications.

Second, speak up. Don’t be afraid to cause trouble. Ask questions and don’t be satisfied with dismissive answers. Challenge beliefs and doctrines. Make waves.

One last note:

Fathers, you are responsible for the spiritual nurture and protection of your family. You cannot delegate that responsibility to someone else. If your “Church” is teaching error, you may need to pull your family out of it. You may have young impressionable children who aren’t ready to take on such a battle. You may have older children whose hearts you risk losing to a youth group. Do whatever you have to in order to fulfill your duty to your family, and disregard the heat that you will inevitably take for it.

Ultimately, like most things, the responsibility for this problem lies with we the people. We’re the ones who have allowed our leaders to get away with the various evils that we bemoan today. (As well as the ones we ought to bemoan but don’t recognize.)

We can pray for revival all we want, but until we stop ignoring God’s Word, we’re not going to see it.

Presidential Candidates

2008-01-08T11:29:00.000-05:00

We are faced with a unique opportunity this year as the ridiculously early primary election season picks up speed. We actually have a choice in presidential candidates from a “major” party that won’t propel us further down the path to social slavery!

Along with the usual suspects, a qualified candidate has slipped through the cracks and managed to make it into primary season! This doesn’t happen nearly as often as it should, the question is “will we take advantage of it and stop (or at least slow) our downward slide?”

Let me start by explaining why most of the candidates are not fit for the office to which they aspire. I’ll not waste time and space discussing the Democrat candidates, because it’s pretty obvious that none of them are qualified. I’ll focus on the Republicans—the party that most Christians think is the “good team”.

Please note that I am not going to give an in-depth analysis of each candidate, (usually only just enough to prove that he is not fit for the office) nor am I going to give the “positives” of each candidate. It’s nice that they want to lower taxes, but that doesn’t make up for utter Constitutional ignorance and apathy.

I might also throw in an additional fact or two that, taken alone, may not technically be enough to disqualify the candidate. These are simply additional reasons not to even consider the candidate in question.

John McCain

“Campaign Finance Reform”. Need I say more? Senator McCain is responsible for one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment we’ve seen in a long time. He’s disqualified by reason of Constitutional illiteracy/apathy.

Rudolph Giuliani

As Mayor of New York, he supported taxpayer funded abortions for any woman who couldn’t afford one. He also opposes the Second Amendment, preferring to put the government in charge of who can and can’t own what type of firearm, with the emphasis on “can’t”. In case you missed it, he’s also on his sixth wife, which says something about his ability to keep an oath or sacred vow. He’s unfit by reason of Constitutional illiteracy/apathy and moral bankruptcy.

Mitt Romney

Anyone with designs on godhood (as any “good” Mormon has) should concern you (and NEVER be elected to ANYTHING!). Romney also displays a frustrating ignorance of the Constitution by claiming to support both the Second Amendment and the so-called “Assault Weapons” and Brady gun bans. Obviously, he’s disqualified due to terminal Constitutional illiteracy at the very least!

Fred Thompson

Supported McCain in 2000. (Also supports so-called “Campaign Finance Reform”.) Believes that life begins at conception, yet also that abortion ought to be legal in all 50 states all the way through the end of the first trimester. Lobbied for “Planned Parenthood”. Certainly disqualified based on Constitutional illiteracy/apathy!

Duncan Hunter

Voted to make the so-called “PATRIOT” Act permanent. (Gross violation of Constitution on many counts.) Certainly disqualified due to chronic Constitutional ignorance/apathy.

Okay, those are the easy ones (relatively speaking). Now we come to the VERY controversial and emotionally–charged candidate from Arkansas. I’m going to break with format and discuss this one a little differently.

Mike Huckabee, on the surface (in other words, in his campaign literature) appears to be a good candidate. He has the endorsement of HSLDA, he’s a professing Christian with an apparently sound marriage. He claims support for the Second Amendment, (and actually demonstrates at least an academic understanding of it’s intent) says all the catch-phrases that small-government conservatives and the evangelical masses long to hear from a candidate, etc., etc..

Unfortunately, once you start digging (if you’re honest about it) you’ll find yourself confronted by the less flattering reality.

Mike Huckabee is the only Republican to earn the endorsement of the national teacher’s union, the NEA (in NH at least). It’s not hard to see why either. He supports the unconstitutional so-called “No Child Left Behind” scheme and he raised taxes as Governor of Arkansas to increase spending on government schools.

He wants a nationwide smoking ban and supports federal farm subsidies. These are not the actions of a man who both respects and understands the Constitution!

His fiscal policy while he was Governor of Arkansas was quite similar to Bill Clinton’s, his past is full of ethical problems and questionable activity, and for advice of foreign policy he turns to none other than Richard Haass, president of the globalist “Council on Foreign Relations”.

Immigration? He claims to oppose amnesty and support a secure border, but as Governor of Arkansas, he supported measures to offer preferential tuition rates to illegal immigrants!

There’s much more I could say about Mike Huckabee, but I think I’ve spent enough time and space to adequately demonstrate that he is not fit for the office of President of the United States.

He appears to be the “designated dark horse” of the Republican leadership, pitched to the disgruntled Republicans and freedom-oriented voters who are sick of the RepubliCrat regime.

But enough of the negative, I said that we actually had a qualified candidate this year, and we certainly do.

Ten-term United States Congressman Ron Paul has demonstrated, not merely in stump speeches on the campaign trail, but throughout all ten terms in Congress, that he has a good working understanding of our Constitution, and equally important, a commitment to abiding by and defending it. He’s earned himself the nickname “Dr. No” on the Hill due to his opposition to so much unconstitutional legislation.

He wants to abolish the so-called Federal “Department of Education”, the IRS, DHS, National Endowment for the Arts, Department of Energy, FEMA, BATFE, and countless other unconstitutional federal agencies. (He’ll never see an endorsement from the NEA!)

He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve (not a government agency) and return us to a constitutional and sound monetary system. He plans to reinstate the traditional, pro-American foreign policy of non-intervention in foreign affairs, saving countless lives and at least a trillion dollars every year, not to mention the preservation of what little freedom we have left here at home.

If we run down a list of issues, Dr. Paul (he’s an OB/GYN who has, in his own words, “assisted women” in the delivery of over 4,000 babies) passes with flying colors, but he also possesses an understanding of how these issues properly fit into our legal system that even many activists often fail to grasp.

He’s pro-life

He’s pro-Second Amendment

He’s pro-small government

He’s pro-tax cuts (he’s planning on eliminating not only the “death tax”, but the income tax and several others as well)

He’s pro-American sovereignty

He’s anti-illegal immigration

Etc., etc., etc..

He also tends to live consistently with his Constitutional beliefs, for example:

He does not participate in the lucrative Congressional pension plan

He has never accepted “Medicare” or “Medicaid” in his private practice

He doesn’t accept taxpayer-funded “junkets” (trips)

He returns part of his Congressional office budget to the treasury every year

No, Congressman Paul is not perfect. No one is. But he’s something that we haven’t seen in a while, at least in presidential candidates. He’s qualified.

You’ll notice that I haven’t said anything about his “chances of winning”. That’s because that is an irrelevant topic when determining the candidate who will receive your vote. For the record, however, Congressman Paul has an excellent chance of winning. He’s beaten the so-called front runners in fundraising, with his funding coming in much smaller increments than the other candidates. (Incidentally, he’s received more money from active-duty military personnel than any other candidate.)

We have an opportunity this year, and it’s one that we may not see again for a long time (if ever). We as Christians had better not squander it, or we will deserve what we get, and more importantly, what we lose.

Don’t throw your vote away this year on a candidate who says one thing, but does another when he gets into office. Congressman Paul doesn’t just say the right things, (the same things he was saying 20 years ago by the way) he has proven himself over ten terms in Congress, often voting against the rest of the House! If he hasn’t “gone soft” and begun to “play ball” with the Establishment in ten terms, it’s probably safe to assume that he’s not going to in two terms in the White House!

I don’t often actually endorse a candidate on this blog, but I am officially endorsing Congressman Ron Paul for the office of President of the United States!

(For more information about Congressman Paul, you can visit his website below, or the link to many of his writings and speeches below that.)

www.RonPaul2008.com

www.lewrockwell.com/paul/

Welcome to 2008!

2008-01-01T23:56:00.000-05:00

I thought that it would be appropriate to start out this new year with a brief evaluation of our collective situation here in the United States of America.

These are, to borrow the famous sentiment, the best of times, and also the worst of times. Bear with me as I start with the latter, as I’d prefer to leave you on a more positive note!

They are the worst of times because we are watching the tattered rags of what little freedom remains in this country slip away into the flames of elitist despotism.

We have seen removed from the minds of men the only sure foundation for their rights; the understanding that those rights come from Almighty God; that they cannot be given away, and that the acceptance of their violation is nothing short of gross dereliction of our duty before Him.

We as a nation have declared ourselves to be pagan. People who consider themselves to be part of the Church aid and abet the enemy, many without even realizing it. An alarming number of them, failing to even recognize that we are in constant warfare, have no ability whatsoever to identify the enemy or his tactics.

The blood of the innocent runs, if not in, then certainly under the streets, flowing into the sewers from the industrial disposals in abortion clinics across the nation as they crush and grind the corpses of tiny infants, slaughtered in the murderous tradition of Herod and Pharaoh of old.

Women and children are raped, murdered and dismembered.

Families are destroyed by the corrupt government agencies who claim to protect them.

Young men and women, already undergoing the de facto lobotomy that is the purpose of the government school system, now fall in a hail of bullets in the designated victim disarmament zones across the nation.

Men are swiftly being rendered helpless and unable to defend their families as they are disarmed in one way or another.

We submit quietly to our preparation for subjugation under absolute despotism.

I could go on, but in short, darkness covers the land.

Yet all is not yet lost, for these are also the best of times.

Innovations and technology give the few who still stand for freedom and justice the means to educate others, and to fight against the growing storm. The internet has proven a valuable tool in propagating information and organizing our efforts.

Production equipment has reached a point in quality and price where it is now within the grasp of those of us who would create true works of art, extolling justice and virtue, glorifying God in our films and TV shows.

More and more people seem to be waking up to the truth.

We actually have a qualified candidate running for the office of President of the United States, and seeking the nomination of a “major party”. (More on that in my next article.)

As the darkness grows, so also the points of light gain intensity and flare up defiantly to ignite those brushfires of liberty spoken of by Samuel Adams.

We will not be silenced!

As those of you who read my last article already know, we had some friends over this past week to watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I couldn’t help but appreciate anew one of the pervasive themes throughout that classic epic: the dedication to duty in the face of what appears to be certain defeat.

So many today would have us turn away from the fight, give up and give in, accept “the way things are” and stop making such a nuisance of ourselves. Tolkien’s epic holds forth a set of heroes who did just the opposite. Heroes, it turns out, never set out to be heroes. They are simply people who do what needs to be done, even when all others around them are trying to dissuade them from taking the risk.

We need heroes today.

We stand on a precipice. If we as a nation, a people, a culture, even as a Church, continue to close our eyes to the uncomfortable truth, we will plunge to the murky depths.

We must face our “sacred cows” and be willing to see the evil that is before our eyes, then take a stand against it, whether we appear to have a “viable chance” of victory or not.

As we enter the Year of Our Lord 2008, let us hold no illusions regarding our present condition, but let us rather recognize the evil that besets us and raise the standard of truth and justice!

The True Epic

2007-12-25T01:43:00.000-05:00

We’ve all said it, and we all will probably continue to say it. We even fight for it, making a point of saying it and refusing the more politically correct “happy holidays”. But somehow, when I reflect on what we’re celebrating, “Merry Christmas” somehow falls flat, pales, and seems incredibly trite.

I know I said something very similar last year in my article “Trite Religiosity”, but it’s been really coming home to me lately as I reflect on this amazing event that we celebrate this time of year.

Allow me a feeble attempt at summarizing the situation on that celebrated night over 2,000 years ago:

In the earliest age of men, still shivering in the cold shadow of the Great Fall, a promise burned brightly in the hearts of the first man to walk the earth and the mother of all living. The Almighty Creator Himself had given it; the promise of a Deliverer. The Great One Who would recover the dominion that they had so recently surrendered to the devious fiend who had taken the body of a serpent in order to usher in his own diabolical oppression.

Even as the memory of the recent horrible banishment drew tears from the eyes of Eve, this hope burned brightly as she wondered if the infant now moving in her womb could be the Promised One!

Generations passed and that promise of deliverance remained a future hope. Entire peoples were wiped out in a terrifying display of God’s wrath, and the corrupted flesh that resulted from the intermarriage with the Elder Race was thoroughly destroyed, leaving only one man, his wife, his three sons, and their wives, to replenish the earth and await the Great Deliverer.

Men gathered together and determined to attain the glory and power of the heavens, mirroring the desires of the Great Fiend who still moved among them with his hordes of The Fallen, seeking to thwart this new race of men and bring them to the same fate as those of the Elder Race who had followed him into rebellion in the previous age.

God again intervened, dividing the race of men and scattering them across the earth.

And still the Promise remained a future hope.

The Almighty visited Abraham and called him out from among his people, leading him into a new land, and striking a covenant that would manifest itself and define the course of history for thousands of years to come! New prophesies joined the old one, telling of the lineage that was to produce the Promised King!

Nations arose and fell. The Fiend reared his ugly head again and again, spreading his own hideous evil across the land that God had once called “very good”.

Still the prophecies remained, disregarded at times by the Chosen People as they rebelled and turned to the Prince of Darkness, repenting and seeing glorious deliverance after judgment, only to turn time and time again to darkness.

The Prophesied One had not yet appeared.

Generations passed, hundreds of thousands, even millions of men and women died still cherishing the hope that one day, the Deliverer would come! The Great Atonement would restore man to his proper fellowship with the Almighty Creator, and light would again spread over the land so scarred for so many years by the disfiguring terror of darkness.

The Almighty sent yet more prophecies to add to the now ancient one He uttered in the earliest days of mankind. These new prophecies were wonderful, baffling at times, and steeped in the mystery of a glimpse into the unknown age ahead.

The Chosen People finally began to fall away into oblivion, the few remaining finding themselves subjected to the tyranny of a ruthless empire after sadistic despot.

Yet the hope of the Prophecies’ fulfillment still burned in the hearts of the faithful, flickering weakly like a candle in a drafty room filled otherwise with the darkness of night.

God had not spoken with man in four hundred years. The force of oppression has ground the Remnant into the dust. Although the hope still flickered in the hearts of many, it now seemed more distant than ever.

Until that one day. She was young, but no longer a child. She now anticipated marriage to a carpenter. She would bear him children, strive to be his helpmeet as he strove to provide for her and protect her from the harshest evidences of the ever-present oppression of the occupying empire. She saw her life playing out before her as the lives of countless other women before her, with few variations. The politics and intrigue would rage around her, giving rise to wars perhaps, and new oppressions.

That life, the normal, quiet life that she had always envisioned, had come to a spectacular end that day. One of the Elder Race had come to visit her. The words he spoke, the message he bore from God, they spun her world upside down. The four-hundred-year-old silence from the Almighty had been broken some few months before, with a promise reminiscent of the one made to an aged Abraham and his barren wife!

Now this messenger was telling the young bride-to-be that she—a virgin—was to give birth to the long-awaited Deliverer! The Great King! The ancient Prophecy was to be fulfilled, and she was to be the vessel that would bring Him into the world! The very Son of God!

The culmination of roughly four thousand years of hope in the promises of God! It was to come to fruition now! Mary would not merely live to see this great Messiah, she would be the vessel by which He would appear on earth!

In spite of the tremendous shock at this news, she had given the reply of the faithful. “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.”

Shame followed as those she held dearest accused her of breaking her vow of purity; fear and grief bore down upon her as the man to whom she was promised prepared to put her away. Then tears of joy when he told her that he too had received the wonderful tidings!

The decree had come as yet another disruption, a journey to be undertaken at the worst of times. The small town of Bethlehem was ill equipped for the large numbers of travelers, and they were forced to seek refuge in the abode of beasts.

Now she lays in the filthy straw, dripping with perspiration and gasping for breath after the travail of childbirth, her husband by her side.

In her young arms she cradles the precious infant. This is He. The One Whose coming has been prophesied for four thousand years! The King of Kings! Emmanuel! The Messiah! The Christ! He was finally here!

The intrigue that would follow, the wars that would be fought, the mighty tide of human history had just changed forever. The world would never be the same. The Fiend cringes as the Son of Man lays in the feeding trough of beasts. This was the One who would raise the banner of light and push back the darkness!

And we say “Merry Christmas”?

See what I mean? It just doesn’t seem to cover it.

More than two thousand years later, we measure time itself by the arrival on this earth of Jesus Christ. He is still the single most disruptive, controversial, and inspiring figure to have ever walked this earth.

Later this week we’re having some friends over to watch the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. It has gained a place in our culture today because of its wonderful tale of good triumphing over evil according to ancient prophecies. How many of us grew up loving this type of tale, wishing that we lived in such a wonderful world, taking our part in a battle of such epic scale?

We do. Only our world, our struggle, our epic history and future, far surpasses anything that Tolkien or any other man could come up with!

This is the time of year when we celebrate the fulfillment of hundreds of ancient prophecies in a thoroughly miraculous manner. We have the amazing history of what happened afterward as well as the wonderful remaining prophecy; that the precious infant who laid in that feeding trough and later offered his own blood as atonement for our willful treachery is coming back in full armament and glory to lead His forces on to victory and put the finishing touches on the stunning defeat of that ancient Fiend who still frantically terrorizes the earth today, clutching with all he has at every chance he can to wreak havoc and do as much damage as he can in his retreat!

So for right now, you’ll forgive me if I don’t close this article with the “traditional seasons’ greeting”, and instead make an imperfect attempt to find something that comes a little closer to communicating the wonder, the majesty, the mystery and glory of Christ’s arrival on earth.

Hail the Almighty King of Kings!

I'm back!

2007-12-06T11:48:00.000-05:00

I sort of fell off the face of the earth for a while there, but I am officially back! Look to see regular updates here on a weekly-to-biweekly basis!

God bless!

When “Good Ideas” Become Lethal Policies

2007-03-03T20:30:00.000-05:00

“The way the judge’s decision is worded, anyone who’s ever fired a gun on their property could open a commercial shooting range, and I don’t want that!”

That is very nearly a verbatim quote from a member of my local Township Board “defending” the decision to continue court action against the owner of a private shooting range for the heinous crime of allowing someone other than his family to shoot on his property occasionally, and for allowing the sound of that shooting to be heard from the neighbors’ property.

My regular readers will be able to easily pick out at least two major problems with that opening statement, but for those of you who are new to the concepts that I deal with on a regular basis, I’ll point them out for you:

1. “The way the judge’s decision is worded…” Judges don’t make law. The wording of the opinion cannot legalize or ban anything.

2. “…I don’t want that!” Excuse me? Since when does an official’s personal wishes justify a violation of basic property rights?

But what if someone is running dirt bikes on their property “constantly”? The very same meeting that aired the shameful quote that opened this article also heard a handful of people, irate over the fact that they’ve been complaining about a neighbor who does just that (or so they claim) for six months and the board “hasn’t done anything!”

Or what about “dangerous” dogs—such as pit bulls—one of which has mauled a local woman? Should they be allowed in a residential neighborhood? That question is currently before the Board of nearby Oxford Township.

Actually, the question that the Oxford Township Board is asking is not “should they be allowed?” but rather, “how can we ban them?”

Isn’t it a good idea to keep vicious dogs from attacking people? Isn’t it annoying to have what practically amounts to a motocross next door?

Of course!

For most people, that settles it. The government should do something!

No one stops to consider the question “does the government have the authority to do this?” “Is this within the jurisdiction of the Township Board?”

That’s because for most people, the idea of the government not having the authority to do something is a completely foreign idea!

Of course, where the concept of jurisdictional limits is foreign, so too is the concept of freedom.

Since most people’s idea of jurisdiction is limited to the concept that the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department can’t operate in Wayne County, I’ll go ahead and lay out the basics:

There are four basic levels of human jurisdiction, with varying sublevels within. I’m going to list them in order from the greatest amount of jurisdiction over the individual to the least.

1. The Individual. The individual is ultimately responsible for his or her actions and will answer to God for them. An individual has absolute control (from a human standpoint) over his or her actions.

2. The Family. The purpose of the family (in an oversimplified nutshell) is to prepare the individual to exercise proper self-rule. The Family (specifically parents) has a dangerous amount of authority nearing absolute power when the individual is young. This power is necessary for the early stages of a child’s life—before he or she is mature enough to exercise proper self-rule—but is devastating if unbalanced by the forces of kinship and parental love, which is why parental authority must remain in the hands of the Family.

3. The Church. Although the role of the Church has changed drastically since the days of priests functioning as intermediates between God and man, the Church still has a very important and distinct jurisdiction that is outside of the Family and Individual, while having limited power over them. The authority of the Church extends to those who have voluntarily placed themselves under it, but the Church’s ministerial jurisdiction extends over the entire earth insofar as it is working under biblical mandates and for the glory of God. This includes charitable efforts in general, educational efforts where the need exists, the exhortation of individuals to fulfill their duties, and the maintenance of public morality. The Church played a very active role, by the way, in the American Revolution, as well as the actual Founding that followed.

4. The State. The State has the worst reputation for trampling the others. It has the smallest jurisdiction, and its purpose is wonderfully stated in the Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen united Colonies:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” (Emphasis mine.)

A very specific jurisdiction for the Federal Government was spelled out later in the Constitution, but remember that the ultimate jurisdictional bounds are above the Constitution, (which can, after all, be amended) and that the Founders were careful to make known in the very same declaration as quoted above:

“…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

Obviously, God is sovereign over all. He instituted these jurisdictions in the first place.

I could write a lot more on this topic, but I’ll leave that for a book.

When the State (read: government at any level) crosses over into the jurisdiction of any of the other three, the result is (by definition) tyranny.

Back to the dirt bike issue: the township in this case considered an amendment to their existing (and already egregious) noise ordinance that would prohibit:

“The use or operation of any kind of racetrack, proving grounds, testing area or obstacle/racing course for motorcycles, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, motor vehicles, boats, racers, automobiles or motor vehicles of any kind…”

Sounds kind of good, doesn’t it? I mean, who wants a motocross next door?

The problem, as I pointed out to the board, is that using government power to deal with—at the very worst—an inconsiderate neighbor, is like using a howitzer to deal with a mosquito. Even if the mosquito carries malaria, a howitzer is the wrong tool to use. You’re going to have a lot of collateral damage.

In this case, the public hearing brought out the fact that there are eight or nine tracks (not professional) around the township, along with a number of hobbyists and professional mechanics who use their property as “proving grounds” for their machines, all without a problem. Those people would be shut down by the proposed ordinance amendment.

It’s called the law of unintended consequences.

Fortunately, the board did not pass the amendment. Unfortunately, they merely tabled it, rather than dumping it completely.

Any time an act of tyranny is perpetrated, (that is, when a branch, body, or official takes an action outside their proper jurisdictional limits) there will be negative, if not disastrous consequences.

Of course, you could say that it’s all a matter of perspective, and you’d be right. Allow me to clarify my previous statement:

The results of said act of tyranny would be damaging and possibly disastrous to a person or people who value freedom and liberty. To someone who is perfectly content to be a slave (and worshipper) of the government, tyranny is hardly something to worry about, as long as the government is working to “keep them safe”.

I assume that my readers are of the former group. If anyone finds themselves in the latter, I would advise that you stop wasting your time here and go back to studying your government school or public university material.

Examples of “good ideas” codified into “law” (most of them are not actually law due to their violation of the Constitution and the Laws of God) abound in America today.

Helping people who, because of injury, age, or some other circumstance are unable to provide for their families is not only a good idea, but is the duty of a Christian people. Trouble quickly ensues, however, when the government tries to step in and do the job. Here are just a few of the problems that we live with today because of government welfare programs, for example:

> Large portions of the money forcefully stolen for the welfare system are burned up in the bureaucratic atmosphere before it ever gets to the people for whom it is intended.

> Many, if not most, of the people who wind up receiving welfare are not people who are unable to provide for their families, but rather people who are too lazy or addicted to drugs to do so.

> As a result of the former two problems, the people who actually need the help are left without nearly enough, if they get any at all.

> On top of this, those who simply need a temporary helping hand have no incentive to get back on their own feet—it’s too easy to live off of the hard work of others.

Don’t tell me that the welfare system is “compassionate”! It’s illegal, and it’s a cruel hoax! Charity should be voluntary, not mandatory.

By the way, for those of you who still think that proponents of “welfare programs” are modern-day Robin Hoods, intent on “stealing from the evil rich to give to the downtrodden poor,” I’ll remind you that Robin Hood stole from corrupt government officials who got their money by robbing hard-working private citizens through taxation, and gave it back to those citizens. (I’m not recommending his methods!)

Welfare proponents are far closer to the greedy Sheriff of Nottingham than Robin Hood.

Another good example of a “good idea” (by now I’m sure you’ve caught on that “good idea” in quotation marks means that the idea may or may not actually be good) is so-called “safe storage” laws.

Do a web search for “merced pitchfork murders” or “Mary Carpenter” and you’ll see why gun locks, separate storage of guns and ammunition, and lack of access for qualified minors—while possibly a good idea if implemented at individual discretion, (depending on the gun and its intended usage)—is typically deadly when required across the board by governmental forces.

I could go on for a long time, listing “good ideas” that have been warped into government controls, but I think you get the point.

When the government oversteps its bounds—no matter how “good” the idea might sound—the people lose freedom and power-hungry politicians move ever closer to their ideal dream of complete control over all of our lives.

By the way, Kelo (the infamous Supreme Court opinion claiming that local governments could take your land and give it to a developer) did not start with a federal action. It didn’t start with a state action. It started with an action at a local level. The closest equivalent in my area is the township board. Maybe you have a village council or a city government. That’s where most of our freedom is lost.

We, as freedom loving citizens, have a duty to be aware of what our local government is doing and hold them accountable. If we don’t, there will soon be no freedom left to defend.

“Xmas” and Trite Religiosity

2006-12-24T01:29:00.000-05:00

It’s that time of year again…you know, time to saddle up and join the fight to thwart the “war against Christmas”. The ACLU is in overdrive trying to remove any mention of Christ either in word or symbol from the public view, and politicians and judges are falling all over themselves to ensure that there remains no visible or audible offense (competition) to zealous followers of religious beliefs whose primary doctrines include either suicidal murderers spending eternity slaking their lust in "paradise", or a complete denial of God’s Almighty Hand at work in creation and human events.

By all means, continue to resist the advance of the insidious “x-mas” and insist on wishing everyone you meet a “merry Christmas” rather than “happy holidays”, a phrase rank with ambiguity and desire to create a new taboo.

Rivaling the atheists’ strategy for effectiveness and the serpent in the Garden for subtlety however, is something that I like to call “trite religiosity”.

Allow me for a moment, to mount the hill overlooking the front lines and point out something that many of us seem to forget on a regular basis.

Go to any Church in the United States and you’ll probably see a nativity scene of some kind and more than likely hear about how Jesus is “the reason for the season”, how He came “to save us from our sins”, how His coming fulfilled certain prophecies, (I certainly hope that most Churches still go through the Old Testament prophecies during the Christmas season!) and other tidbits of truth, often straight from the pages of Scripture.

Unfortunately, whoever said that “familiarity breeds contempt” was right. We have many of our facts right, yet our attitude is one of “trite religiosity”. We fail to comprehend the full impact and significance of the facts behind our several-hundred-year-old clichés, and we reduce the awesome nature of Biblical events—especially those surrounding Christ—to the segregated domain of the “religious”.

Think about it; when was the last time that you actually took in the enormity of the fulfilling of hundreds of ancient prophecies?

Doesn’t it send chills up your spine and a thrill through your being to think about it in those terms?

We love fantasy stories involving a hero (or heroes) whose coming was foretold by some wise ancient, (think about the “Lord of the Rings” or “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”) and yet here we celebrate the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies far greater in scope, precision, and power than anything any fiction writer has ever dared to throw at us, and we say…

…“merry Christmas”?

Many of our Christmas traditions have faded with use until they seem to have lost much of their original effect—if not meaning.

The significance of the event itself is difficult to comprehend. Think about it. To tell the story properly, with all of the necessary set up and background, we would have to start at Genesis 1:1, at the very beginning of history!

No wonder the angels sang “Gloria in excelsis Deo!” Christ’s birth, life, death, burial, and resurrection—indeed, Christ Himself—forms the crux—the central point—upon which all of history turns! (Who are these insignificant little blowhards who think that they can sweep Him under the carpet?)

Maybe part of the reason that we tend to lose sight of this thrilling reality—aside from the fact that we celebrate it every year in much the same way—is it’s very magnitude.

It’s a classic case of missing the forest because of the trees. Not that we never see it, but in the day-to-day discussion of the Christmas holiday it’s often completely absent, if not from our words, certainly from our attitudes.

“Merry Christmas” sounds a little trite doesn’t it? Don’t you just wish you could come up with something that would just convey the full power and excitement rightly inspired by such a momentous event?

I suspect that we’re stuck with “merry Christmas” for a while, unless we want to start shouting “Gloria in excelsis Deo!” or “glory to God in the highest!” (which actually wouldn’t be a bad idea!) but let’s make sure that we take a few minutes this Christmas to let those chills run up our spine as we soak in the amazing event we’re celebrating! (and ultimately the amazing God behind it!)

God bless!

Gloria in excelsis Deo!

"Thankfulness Day"

2006-11-23T12:38:00.000-05:00

Millions of families will be sitting today around a table filled with turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, mashed potatoes, and other traditional dishes. Inevitably, in many of these gatherings, someone will initiate a round of “what are you thankful for” discussion.

Around the nation, the media, public officials, and individuals will refer to today as “Turkey Day”, probably uncomfortable with the days history, while still mostly remembering the elements of “thankfulness” that are still commonly celebrated.

I think it’s important, however, that we not sit back and say “well isn’t that nice, they’re celebrating Thanksgiving because they’re being thankful and talking about it.”

Why don’t we instead challenge the culture by asking the simple question “to whom are we thankful, and for what?”

In short, we need to avoid the currently popular “thankfulness day” celebratory practices in favor of the spirit of the true Day of Thanksgiving.

We know that the “First Thanksgiving”, celebrated in 1621 by the Pilgrims, was held specifically to give thanks to God for the bountiful harvest and for His guiding hand in teaching them how to survive the coming winter. This wasn’t for them the beginning of an annual tradition, although we still view it as the “First Thanksgiving”. Why? Because those who instituted our current national holiday recognized that it was the first recorded corporate celebration of thankfulness toward God for His manifold blessings; an attitude woven throughout the fabric of our founding history.

The Thanksgiving celebration, I believe, is most properly laid forth when ordered by President Washington in 1789. Although the national holiday wasn’t legislated into official tradition until 1941, Washington’s proclamation articulates the spirit that should define the day:

“WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

“NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our sasety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

“And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

“GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington”

Let us all remember Washington’s words and heed his exhortation on this Day of Thanksgiving, in the year of Our Lord Jesus Christ, two thousand and six.

Attack of the "Nice" Politicians

2006-11-07T09:14:00.000-05:00

This nation has suffered greatly in recent years—decades, actually—from “Nice” politicians who are, in short, unqualified for the positions they hold.

This is due in large part to the fact that for most “conservative” voters, qualification to hold office seems to hinge on how “nice” the candidate is, what party affiliation he holds, and even how “Christian” he claims to be or the number of menu item issues on which he claims “good” positions.

Once in office, these “nice” politicians proceed to join the powerbrokers’ club and do “their part” to destroy the already terribly mangled freedom that we once enjoyed here in America.

Even worse is the fact that most “conservative” voters are so reluctant to recognize such treachery, preferring instead to explain away the actions of their beloved “conservative” candidate.

The simple truth is that these “nice” politicians (of whom I could name at least a dozen without even giving it serious thought) are not fit to serve in the offices to which they are or wish to be elected. Many of them mean well, but they’re simply not qualified. They’re genuine in their erroneous beliefs or their gross misapplication of true beliefs.

How then do they get elected? That one is easy. Very few American voters understand the proper qualifications for public office any better than the officials currently at work obliviously bumbling their way down the “12 steps to the destruction of a free society” list.

Solution? We, the American voting public need a sound refresher course in truth, law, and biblical political policy.

I could write a book about the myths that most “conservative” voters believe, and maybe I will sometime, but for now, today is Election Day. By the time you read this, it’ll probably already be over. Take a look at the candidates on the ballot. Ignore the party label. How many of them are actually qualified for the office to which they seek election? How many of them have even a basic understanding of the Constitution or biblical worldview?

Of course, to answer any of those questions, you have to have a good grip on those things yourself. If you do, you’re probably just nodding your head and agreeing with everything I’ve said in this post. Chances are however, that you’re a part of the vast majority of “conservative”—perhaps even “Christian” voters who do not.

We have too many politicians running around out there calling themselves “Christian” (and I’m not discussing their salvation here) who have no idea what it means to actually have a biblical worldview—or to be a righteous ruler!

Until conservative voters themselves find out what it means to be qualified for public office (which includes having a biblical worldview) and commit themselves to electing only candidates who meet that criteria, this country will continue its current downhill slide.

We’ve been so busy electing “nice” politicians that we’ve forgotten to elect qualified ones.

We’ve been so busy electing popular politicians that we’ve forgotten to elect Godly rulers.

By the way, if you do belong to that majority of conservative Christian voters I mentioned earlier, you need to keep an eye on www.PatriotOpinion.com.

One warning for you though: the truth isn’t pretty, and it’s rarely easy to act upon. Reality isn’t fun, and I don’t sugarcoat!

It was Jesus Himself who said “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

Pay attention, and you’ll quickly become a frustrated but educated freedom fighter!

Mass Murder by Any Name

2006-09-23T10:30:00.000-04:00

I'm back! I was in Poland for a while, interning on a feature film. The cast took the four of us American interns down to Auschwitz on one of our days off. I thought it fitting to type out a post on the way back to Łodz (pronounced "wooch"). Here it is:

I’m just returning from a day at Auschwitz (it’s our day off) so I have a little time on the three or so hour drive to rip out a quick entry here.

Auschwitz is a difficult place to visit, given what happened there, but even more revolting is the fact that we have done so much worse here in the U.S. over the last 33 years.

If you know a little history, it’s hard to avoid remembering that fact while you tour the Nazi concentration camp. The tour guide talks about Zyklon B, the chemical used in the gas chambers. The company that made the poison for the Nazis changed their name after the war in an attempt to escape the stigma. What are they doing today? They manufacture RU 486, the “abortion pill”.

Remember Josef Mengele? The “doctor” who performed such hideous experiments on innocent children? The tour guide told us that he escaped after the war and died later in Brazil. What she forgot to mention, however, is that while living in Brazil, he made his living as an abortionist.

Yes, while the Nazis murdered around 1.1 million people in Auschwitz over about five years, we’ve murdered a greater number than that every year for the last 33 years here in American death camps, also known as abortion clinics.

Our death toll currently stands at around 47 million!

A thought for you:

Back to the Nazis; that incrementalist policy worked great for stopping the murder of so many innocent people didn’t it? I mean, if we’d just gone in there and tried to end it once and for all, all at once, we might have set ourselves back and the Holocaust might still be happening!

Oh, wait a minute. We did charge right in to stop it. We didn’t implement an incrementalist policy, in fact, had we done so, we might all be talking right now (and maybe in German) about how great it is that we’ve managed to make the killings more humane and reduce their number by, say, ten percent this year.

So why do we think that an incrementalist policy (the one that keeps us from, oh, I don’t know, maybe banning abortion) is going to work here?

“Oh, but that was different!”

Sure it was!

> The Nazis killed far fewer people than we have,

> they only managed to do it for around five years or so, and

> it won’t take anything approaching military force to end abortion in the U.S.!

Incrementalism has consistently not worked for 33 years. How about we try something a little different? Something like ending abortion perhaps? It’s not that difficult if we would only get a few very simple but increasingly unpopular concepts through our heads:

I don’t care who you are, if you have the power to end abortion and you do not, you are not fit for the office to which you were elected.
Congress, the Courts, and the President all have the power to end abortion immediately.

Each branch has sworn to uphold the Constitution, which proclaims that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
Each person in each branch is sworn to uphold the Constitution independently of any other person or branch. Not to sound too much like your mother, but just because everyone else is doing it (disregarding the Constitution) doesn’t mean that you should!

You are responsible for the actions of the leadership that you elect—perhaps excluding any random acts completely inconsistent with that leadership’s values and previous actions. If you choose to vote for the “lesser of two evils”, be aware that you are responsible for the evil perpetrated by that candidate if he or she is elected. With some issues, that might not be too terrible, but when it comes to the lives of 3,000-4,000 innocent children every day, you might want to think long and hard before accepting that responsibility.

By the way, I’m not saying that any elected official who fails to do what they can to end abortion isn’t pro-life, (at least in the technical sense that they feel pro-life and don’t like abortion) but every excuse I have ever heard for a member of Congress, the courts, or the President not making a serious and substantive attempt to end abortion is a plain declaration of that person’s lack of fitness for public office. For just a few brief examples:

“Oh, but they don’t know that they have that power!”

Excuse me? If you are unaware of the Constitutional limits and powers of your own office, you do not belong there!

“The Party won’t let them end abortion.”

While true, this indicates that the office holder cares more about “the Party” than about the Law! Definitely not qualified for public office!

“They won’t be successful in their efforts!”

If guaranteed success is necessary for you to attempt the proper execution of your sworn duty, I recommend that you never join the armed forces, any governmental body, the medical profession, law enforcement, or any profession that affects the lives of any other American!

“Most people don’t recognize those powers and laws.”

Oh, well in that case…it’s your duty to force the issue and educate the people in a high-profile manner as to their own law!

It’s easy for us to point fingers at the German Christians in the years before and during WWII and ask “why didn’t they do something about Hitler and the Holocaust?” What we need to be asking, however, is “what will we do today?”

Lame excuses fall flat when confronted with the harsh reality of mass murder as carried out by today’s abortionists. They make Hitler’s Nazis look like amateurs!

In the end, it’s patriots and heroes who stand up for what’s right in an age of whining acquiescence to evil. Everyone else has blood on their hands.

I’m sorry, but I simply can’t allow my hands to be stained with the blood of 3,000-4,000 innocent children every day; what about you?

On Hiatus!

2006-06-23T08:36:00.000-04:00

If you'll care to read this story, you'll find that doctors are now warning people not to use their cell phones outside in thunderstorms.

Um...okay...

Hang on! Who on earth is standing around out in the middle of a THUNDERSTORM talking on their CELL PHONE?

Whatever!

Anyway, it's been a while since I've posted, and I will be back, but I'll be gone this next week, and then I'll likely be leaving the country around July 15, not to return to the blogosphere until September sometime.

Between those two dates I will probably be far too busy to post.

I will return!

In the mean time, God bless!

"An Inconvenient Truth"?

2006-06-03T20:31:00.000-04:00

There’s been plenty of buzz going around recently about AlGore’s new film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, with many of the “critics” raving that it’s the greatest film ever, or something like that.

The reason they say this, of course, is that they like the message: “human activity is destroying the earth and we need government to step in and save the day.”

While it is true that government involvement stifles human productivity, the myth of so-called “global warming” is nothing more than an attempt to scare the population into giving more power to the “elite”.

By the way, I want to make it clear that I have not seen and do not plan to see this latest piece of propaganda. I’m talking about the issue as a whole here, and not AlGore’s movie specifically.

Isn’t it interesting, by the way, that the group whining today about “global warming” today and warning of impending doom is the same bunch screaming about “global cooling” thirty-some years ago?

Ah, yes, we were supposed to be in an “ice age” by the year 2000. Right! The only “ice age” in sight in Y2K was the movie! (Released two years later, in 2002)

What supposedly caused global cooling? Human activity. What supposedly causes global warming? Human activity.

What’s the bottom line? Say anything to scare the living daylights out of people so that they’ll bow to a rule of the “elite”.

Guess what? Some Russian “expert” is now claiming that global cooling will start again sometime around 2012!

Say, has anyone caught on that this might be—oh, I don’t know—a NATURALLY OCCURING CYCLE or something?

By the way, does anyone else notice the irony in complaints of warm weather? I live in Michigan. Our economy is currently the reason that people are moving out, but in a normal year, with a competent state government, (and therefore a decent economy) our largest population losses probably come from people fleeing to warmer weather in the South. (If only for the Winter) We could stand a few more degrees up here!

Could warmer temperatures ever be disastrous? Sure—once we escalate by 100 degrees or so in a couple years. See that happening? No!

By the way, scientists just recently “discovered” that the earth’s arctic regions used to be subtropical! Of course, if you’ve read your Bible recently, you already knew that!

(Note: these “scientists” claim that this was an absurd and nonexistent 55 million years ago—if the earth and sun existed 45 million years ago, their surfaces would be touching. Subtropical? Whatever!)

The point is, we’re fine now aren’t we? Life did not cease to exist because the polar ice caps were missing! (Actually, at that time they had never been there, but you get the point!)

Want to hear something really loony? “Scientists” are also claiming that global warming can actually cause global cooling!

So what it all boils down to is this: the real “Inconvenient Truth” is only inconvenient to people who gain power by scaring their fellow man into subservience.

By the way, in case you want to join me in ridiculing the absurdity of the “global warming” panic, drop by my store and check out my global warming T-shirts.

Whatever you do, don’t let anyone scare you out of your freedom. Believe me, there are a lot of people trying!

The Perfect Weapon (Part Three)

2006-05-20T20:02:00.000-04:00

Given the power of film, what role does the Christian community play in the industry? Perhaps more importantly, what role should it play?

Well, I hate to say it, but we as Christians have a tendency to do more harm than good.

Christian reactions to Hollywood’s leftist propaganda typically a combination of one or more of the following:

1. “What harm can it do? It’s just entertainment!”—they keep watching, subsidizing the enemy, and allowing their own beliefs to be adversely affected.

2. “Oh, we don’t watch the ‘dirty’ ones!”—they completely ignore (or are blissfully ignorant of) the perverted worldview, as long as there isn’t too much in the way of explicit sex, drug use, and harsh profanity. Not that it’s possible to find that many films coming out of Hollywood nowadays that don’t ooze filth from every filmstrip perforation. Again, they allow their worldview and that of their children to be strongly influenced by the enemy and subsidize his advance.

3. “Movies are evil!”—they shun movies, and often any other kind of entertainment or fun that can be found, including good novels. Far from being Biblical, this reaction usually involves more egotistical striving to feel like they’re better than everyone else—or, as they often put it, “holier”. Do not confuse this with the next one!

4. “There are so few truly good ones out there that we almost don’t bother anymore!”—this tends to be the more practical Christian who isn’t necessarily against movies (or TV for that matter) but is fed up with trying to find the “good ones”. This is practicality as opposed to the egotism of the previous category.

Obviously, I don’t think much of any of these reactions! The last one is probably the “lesser of four evils” here. Given that Christians are supposed to be the salt of the earth, it doesn’t do much good on its own. It’s all right as a starting point, but nothing more.

So how should we respond?

Glad you asked!

Christians are known as great complainers. Sure, it’s important that we call evil on the mat, but we’re the ones responsible for bringing light into the world. In other words, if evil prevails, it’s our fault. We should be competing for dominance by raising the standard of Almighty God over every stronghold of power in existence.

In some cases, such as government controlled indoctrination centers, (a.k.a. “schools”) we do that by eliminating them. They’re not legitimate weapons in their present form.

Film, however, is a different matter. It’s a perfectly legitimate art form, (and cultural weapon) and Christians need to stand up set the standards of excellence.

We need to understand what we’re doing as well. One primary mistake that “Christian” filmmakers often make is to assume that if it mentions Jesus, it’s a good movie or, conversely, if it doesn’t explicitly lay out the Gospel, it’s not a “Christian” film. Both of these statements are patently false.

In reality, most “Christian” films out there are no good whatsoever. The technical quality is more likely an embarrassment to the Almighty Creator than a tribute. The plots are flat and unbelievable, the characters might as well be made out of cardboard, and to top it all off, they usually resort to some “feel-good” pseudo-Gospel instead of using the real one, and the underlying worldview is quite often defined by Hollywood myths rather than the truth of God.

Another mistake Christians often make is that they assume that they have to go to Hollywood to make a difference. Now, don’t get me wrong, it is possible that God could use Christians within the Hollywood structure to “reform” it for His glory.

Trouble is, that’s kind of like electing a leftist president and asking God to change his heart so that he becomes a true conservative—in other words, foolish and presumptive.

Christians in Hollywood are forced to compromise in ways that render them completely useless. Even proponents of Christians in Hollywood can’t put their finger on any greater achievement than having a Christian writer cut a few raunchy jokes out of The Simpsons or “Christian” involvement in writing Buffy the Vampire Slayer and That 70’s Show. (I’m not kidding!) As Doug Phillips of the Vision Forum once asked, “is that victory?”

The answer, of course, is no. Thus, the road that we as Christians must pursue is the independent route. A harder road in many ways, but far more feasible than it used to be for many reasons, not the least of which is technology.

What about Christians who aren’t called to be active filmmakers?

You watch movies don’t you? How about evaluating worldviews instead of simply counting swear words? How about not settling for Hollywood’s pathetic recent attempts to pander to the Christian market without actually adopting a Christian worldview?

Why not express the same outrage over Andrew Adamson’s perversion of Aslan in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe into a wimpy, incapable subject of the “Deep Magic”, (a la George Lucas’ “Force”) as Lord of the Rings fans would have expressed if Peter Jackson had made Sam and Frodo out to be homosexuals?

(I’ve probably opened a can of worms or two there that I’ll need to address in a later article!)

Possibly the most important thing that we as Christians can do is to recognize the growing independent Christian film industry (now in its infancy) and do what we can to support it. If you want something to look at now, go to www.IndependentChristianFilms.com and sign up to attend the third annual San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival. You’ll be amazed at what God is doing! (Not to mention the fact that you’ll find opportunities to get involved in more ways than you can possibly imagine!)

Another thing to consider; I’ve mentioned worldview throughout this article. How well do you understand your own? If you’re like 99% of American Christians, you have no idea. That’s something that only you can change. You must start questioning every facet of your belief system, making sure that it’s fully consistent with itself and, most importantly, God’s Word. Like I said before, whatever portion of your worldview is based on the truth can handle some severe scrutiny. It’s the portions based on lies and myths that will tend to crumble.

By the way, I can help with that. Check out my articles and blog posts from time to time. Whenever I say something that completely blows you away, hit stop and start thinking it over. (I may have said some things in this very article that have you wondering what planet I’m from!)

“Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and to be trodden under the foot of men.” ~ Jesus Christ, Son of Man, Creator of the universe. (Matthew 5:13)

Remember, salt in a wound stings, and light can be painfully bright to those who are used to the darkness.

The Perfect Weapon (Part Two)

2006-05-11T17:13:00.000-04:00

Language and explicit material aside, (because that’s not what I’m dealing with here) Hollywood movies today typically pack a cultural punch that often goes undetected by the viewing populace.

Part of the reason for this is that we’ve already undergone a few generations of indoctrination.

Take a look at some of the primary methods used by Hollywood (a.k.a. leftist) filmmakers to bend the worldview of their audience to more closely resemble their own.

1. False Portrayal

You’ve undoubtedly heard complaints about the clergy being portrayed as villainous or corrupt in movies, and this is a common occurrence. They’re not the only ones; fathers, businessmen, committed mothers, Christians in general, gun owners, and other people who are considered to be threats to a Marxist regime are regularly demonized, not only in movies, but in almost any kind of mass media you can find. At the same time, of course, the heroes are typically people who are opposed to the basic tenets of Christianity and God’s law in some form, and proponents of a Marxist worldview.

Why is portrayal important? Because the audience is required to make value judgments and decisions throughout the movie in order to participate in the entertainment experience. When they are used to seeing stereotypical characters on the screen, they are susceptible to off-screen comparisons. This doesn’t mean that they’ll automatically accept those comparisons, just that they will already be somewhat biased in that direction.

2. False Dilemmas

Hollywood delights in presenting viewers with conflicts based on a Marxist worldview. A good example might be a movie in which the hero is fighting to “preserve” some natural environment or “endangered” species from a “commercial interest”, be it a developer or a zookeeper.

Sound familiar?

What’s wrong with that?

First, the film will usually portray the developer as a villainous businessman (see False Portrayal above) who cares nothing for the beauty and value of whatever “natural treasure” he wants to replace with a subdivision, while the environmental activist is the loving, reasonable and committed person who selflessly fights to defend “the innocent”.

There has probably never been a single person who has ever actually met either of these stereotypes, but that aside, the conflict presented to the viewer of the movie is based on Marxist views.

“Capitalist businessmen are evil,” “animal life is equal in value to human life,” (since we’re all just highly evolved animals) and usually “the government needs to step in and save the spotted owl from the evil capitalist.”

Are there ever scenarios in real life that look like this? No. The media does their best to convince us that there are, but in order to do that, they must rely on the stereotypes and false dilemmas made familiar to viewers by Hollywood.

Essentially, the movie is asking the audience to choose between two alternatives—neither of which exist in the real world (at least not often, some of them do exist in rare circumstances)—but both of which are connected by labels to people and ideas that are common in reality.

That’s why we have such an easy time accepting leftist lies—such as the one about the necessity (or even legitimacy) of government protection of “endangered species”.

Again, not all false dilemmas are completely removed from reality—some are merely twisted from rare occurrences.

3. False Solutions

In addition to the false dilemma, resolving the conflict in the plot with a false solution is common practice. This is easy for Hollywood, because they get to make up the ending.

The Bible says “be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

Hollywood says “be not concerned, God is not real, (or capable) for whatsoever is right in your own eyes, that you may do without lasting negative consequence.”

Also in Hollywoodland, government programs solve the world’s problems, rejecting technology results in living peacefully and “in tune with nature”, and putting a radical feminist in charge of anything makes everything work out all right in the end.

Next time you sit down and watch a movie, watch for these tactics and ask yourself what their purpose is. Of course, since most of us accept an unhealthy collection of leftist lies already, try this; identify the message of the movie and any of the portrayals, controlled dilemmas, and solutions you may notice, and then question that message, whether you believe it or not. If it’s true, it can take the scrutiny, if not, I’d recommend ditching it.

I wish I could take the time to explain the technical details of how each of these tactics are executed, (I’m sure you already know about the effects of shooting a character with a “high” or “low” angle—that technique doesn’t even scratch the surface of the basics) but it would probably take an entire book, and I’ve already trashed my goal of keeping my word count down around 500!

In the next part, I’m going to discuss how we (the conservative community—especially the Church) have enabled Hollywood to promote its leftist agenda, and what we can and should be doing to reverse the problem. Hint: I’m not a fatalist—there is a solution, and it’s a very real one! (And it’s not picketing theaters and boycotting movies!)

Until then, scrutinize even the most seemingly benign messages in the movies you watch and question them.

You’ll probably find yourself questioning parts of your own worldview—and possibly even discovering Marxist elements that you never realized were there.

The Perfect Weapon (Part One)

2006-05-01T17:55:00.000-04:00

What if you had a weapon so powerful that you could control, say, the largest and most influential nation on the face of the earth (and several more besides) without a military invasion? You could cause the vast majority of the population to line up and obey you virtually without question?

Sound like science fiction? Alien mind control? Nope. Such a weapon exists and has been in use for over 70 years.

The downsides are that it takes a little while to take full effect and it’s expensive. On the other hand, it’s incredibly effective. It works best when used in conjunction with a couple of other weapons, and when it has taken effect, it is near impossible to counteract. Note that I said near impossible. I’ll get to that in a later article.

This weapon has the capability to “make men love their servitude”.

Curious?

It was used by the Comintern (in it’s time, it was the organization charged with spreading communist rule) to invade the Western world. They code-named it “Babylon”.

Control over this weapon was in dispute starting sometime in the ‘30s but by the late ‘50s the Marxists had full control.

And chances are that you have been directly affected. Doubt me?

The weapon is called film, and the control center is Hollywood, California.

The power of film is that it has the ability to take an unsuspecting audience and change the way they look at the world—their worldview. However slight this change might be in many cases, when multiplied out over hundreds, even thousands of movies and several generations, the result can be catastrophic.

The reason for this is that a movie is essentially a story. It takes place in a world, whether present-day planet earth or otherwise, that is fabricated by the filmmakers. They decide what consequences each character faces for his or her actions and pose the questions that the audience will ultimately answer by looking at the example given in the story.

This enables filmmakers to color their audience’s view of the world and even program their reactions to match those of the filmmaker.

Another element that lends additional power to the film medium is emotion. Film, being at its core art, is based on emotion. Oh, sure, it can get you thinking, but it does that by triggering an emotional response. I won’t bother trying to explain all of the different techniques used to achieve this goal at the moment, but believe me, these people know what they’re doing!

In the next article, I’ll talk more about how film influences people today and give examples of how a movie works to color and bend your worldview to more closely match those of its makers.

You’ll be amazed when you see some of these tactics and discover how many of them have been at work on you!

"Based on a True Story" (Sort of)

2006-04-26T07:57:00.000-04:00

Hollywood is famous for making movies that are supposedly "based on a true story", most of which barely resemble the source material in the slightest, but at least they added an additional disclaimer on this one.

Domino was released last year and sports the usual claim of being "based on a true story", with the unusual addition of "...sort of".

I haven't seen this movie, and I have no intention of doing so, given some of the content, but I stumbled across it recently and thought it worth a blog post.

The tagline is "I am a bounty hunter". It's a classic Hollywood favorite; a young girl who bucks the "gender stereotypes" and takes on a man's job. I can only imagine the fun they must have had, painting young Domino Harvey, daughter of actor Laurence Harvey, as a heroic role model for women, taking up heavy weaponry and glamorously blowing the bad guys away.

Nothing unusual so far, except that this movie--or rather, the movie's real-life subject, the real Domino Harvey--threw a little irony into the mix.

You see, Hollywood loves to glamorize twisted behavior and rarely, if ever, show the consequences.

Rebellion against God's design in one area almost always brings on rebellion in other areas of life. Domino Harvey was no exception. Homosexuality and drugs became a part of her life, and we'll never know what misery she suffered alone.

She was only 35 (going on 36) last year when the movie was planned for release. Knowing how her story had been modified and "enhanced" by filmmakers, she spoke of making a documentary of her life so that people could hear "the true story". Instead, she accidentally summed it up in one evening.

On June 27, 2005, she overdosed and died in her bathtub.

Hollywood can ignore the consequences of their beloved rebellion against God, but there's now a headstone somewhere standing as a monument to 35 years of pain and misery that ended in a drug overdose.

One of Domino's actual quotes that made the movie is "flip a coin; heads, you win, tails, you die."

It apparently didn't cross Domino's mind that either way, you will reap what you sow.

Domino's short 35 years on this earth is one sad testament out of many to the "feminist dream". Each story is different. Some involve drugs and violence, others involve boardrooms and lawsuits.

Some end with drug overdoses, others in venereal disease and yet others in the lonely emptiness that comes from cutting off God's blessing of a family.

The tragedy of Domino Harvey is just one of a long list of miserable lives that serve as the raw material from which Hollywood has "cooked up" a lethal batch of glamorous rebellion against God.

"Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

In other words, the rebellious high may look good on the silver screen, but watch out for the hangover. In Domino's case, as in so many others, it lasts for eternity.

Word Games: "Immigrant Rights"

2006-04-12T11:20:00.000-04:00

True Patriots will do well to take note of the words used by liberal activists--especially those in the media.

Rush Limbaugh likes to say that "words mean things". The Left understands this and they go one step further. They say "words mean things--and we say what those things are."

Whoever defines the terms and criteria of the debate wins.

Take the current hubbub surrounding our borders and those who violate them.

According to the media, the pro-illegal alien crowd has been "protesting for immigrant rights".

Excuse me?

What these people are rallying to support has nothing to do with rights, and does not concern immigrants in general. Far from it. It concerns illegal aliens, (also known as criminals) and their blatant violation of our legitimate, legally adopted immigration laws.

They do not have any right to violate our laws or expect aid from American businesses and citizens while doing so.

If we once surrender the terms and use the lingo handed us by the left, we've lost the debate.

Courage in Politics

2006-04-11T13:29:00.000-04:00

I'm back! I've been a little busy to post for the last two weeks or so, but I'm back!

It's not often that we see true courage in politics, so I thought I'd point it out.

By the way, the exception to the above statement is virtually every candidate running on the Constitution Party platform. This takes a tremendous amount of courage, both because they stand for the truth, and because, as a result, they wind up as targets for persecution from people who call themselves "conservatives", including friends, family, and so-called conservative organizations.

Within the two major parties however, such courage in defense of the truth is becoming more and more rare.

Here in Michigan, we have three Republicans running to replace our Democrat senator Debbie Stabenow in the 2006 elections.

I've spoken with all three of them, and as usual, the rhetoric is thick and difficult to pierce. Most of what these gentlemen say sounds great...as far as it goes. That's the problem. It doesn't go very far.

In spite of the most probing questions that I have been able to ask, (without having a concentrated sit-down interview--which I doubt their campaign managers would allow) I'm not convinced that any of them have the intestinal fortitude to take a stand even on those topics where they verbally sound conservative, with one exception.

His name is Jerry Zandstra. In response to a question I asked him about what he would do when faced with a blatantly unconstitutional appropriations bill--supported by the Republican majority in Congress and the Republican President--he said that he believed that one of the qualifications necessary for anyone to hold the office for which he is running is that that person not need the job. In other words, they need to be willing to lose the next election if that's what it takes to do the right thing.

Needless to say, I agree whole-heartedly. Talk is cheap, however, and I have taken his words with a grain of salt.

Recently, however, Mr. Zandstra has taken an action that speaks far louder than those words.

In our state, an organization called Michigan Citizens for Life has stepped up to the task that we should have taken in hand years ago.

This organization has initiated a petition drive to put an amendment to our state Constitution on the ballot in November. This amendment recognizes for the purposes of Michigan law and the Constitution that personhood begins at conception, and that all persons are to have the protection of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses from that point.

I'm disappointed to say that the organization calling itself "Right to Life" (both national and state branches) has opposed any measure that would result in such complete protection of innocent human life. They opposed the South Dakota measure and successfully defeated it the last time it came around, and opposed it this most recent time, though happily they lost that battle. They have also registered their opposition to this new effort to protect unborn children here in Michigan.

Mr. Zandstra, being pro-life not only in word but also in deed, informed Michigan Right to Life of his intention to support the initiative.

He was told in no uncertain terms that if he did so he would lose his MRTL endorsement.

He did. He announced formally that he would support the petition drive and MRTL summarily revoked their endorsement of him.

Right to Life's endorsement is perhaps one of the most important to any Republican candidate. Mr. Zandstra demonstrated that he was willing to risk losing the election if necessary in order to do the right thing.

For this courage, I applaud him. Neither of the other candidates have demonstrated such courage, and for that reason, I consider him to be the best candidate running on the Republican ticket.

This is not the first time that he has taken a risky position, but this is perhaps the largest risk to date.

It still remains to be seen to my satisfaction whether his worldview is as whole and complete as it must be in order to tackle the many difficult tasks facing our next United States Senator, but he has at least demonstrated a certain integrity that bodes well for the rest.

Thank you, Mr. Zandstra, for demonstrating that there still exist politicians who can take a stand for right no matter what.

Michigan Citizens For Life
Mr. Zandstra's Campaign Website

Patriots On Our Borders & Security At Home

2006-03-21T10:51:00.000-05:00

Well, the Minuteman Project is at it again!

I would like to take this opportunity to thank these bold patriots for forcing this on-the-ground approach into the national debate.

Although they are certainly unable--at the moment--to patrol our entire southern border, they've chosen one of the highest traffic areas for illegals, rolled up their sleeves, and gone to work, well aware that their greatest achievement will probably be to put pressure on the politicians who have refused to do the job that they were elected to do.

The usual whiners are out in force.

"Hispanic" and "Immigrant 'rights'" groups are complaining that the Minutemen are "racist". (If you look carefully, you'll find that most groups throwing that term around are actually racist themselves, and are often expressing their racist sentiments by screaming "racist" at anyone who isn't)

The media is delighting in referring to the project as "controversial"--which, for those of you who haven't caught on yet, usually means "bad" in mediaspeak--and conjuring up horror stories of what these dangerous people could do--unlike the "peaceful" Arabic Muslim creeping over the border with drugs and explosives.

President Bush, not content to keep federal forces from protecting our borders, has openly opposed the project, calling the patriotic volunteers "vigilantes".

In case you missed the memo, "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom".

Has anyone else figured out why President Bush opposes securing our borders?

I have.

I'll be nice and give the President the benefit of the doubt that his intentions do not involve another successful terrorist attack, but one thing that they do involve is power.

Power from two different angles:

First, he wants to keep the "Hispanic" community (especially the illegal portion--after all, they vote too!) voting Republican. (He has managed to pick up some support among their ranks.)

This is the "gotta keep my Party in power" mentality.

Second, he wants terrorists to make it across the border so that he can catch them using his pet project, the so-called "Patriot Act". Why? Because he needs a trophy that he can hold up every so often to keep too many people from seriously questioning this tremendous power-grab.

Now, I understand that the Democrats are, for the most part, screaming bloody murder over the wiretaps, the "Patriot Act", and other similar Bush projects, but try to understand; they don't mean to be right, they're just doing what they have to in order to keep themselves opposed to the Republican Party so that the people won't notice the two working toward the same goal: absolute control of the American people.

Thus, they violate our constitutional rights, claiming that it's necessary to do so in order to "keep us safe," while at the same time they refuse to take the most basic legal security measures--enforcing our immigration laws and deporting violators immediately.

Benjamin Franklin once noted that "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And as I recall, it was on this Thursday (March 23) in 1775 that the great American patriot Patrick Henry uttered the immortal words:

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me; give me liberty, or give me death!"

It's time a few more of us spoke up with words to that effect, and demonstrated to these politicians that we will no longer be made slaves to our own government under the pretense of "security".

Let us remember the advice from Patrick Henry that we have failed to remember, let us remember, repair the damage, and forget no more:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

Guns and the Commoners

2006-03-06T15:16:00.000-05:00

I caught a portion of a program the other day supposedly about "vigilantism". Admittedly, the program did a fair job in distinguishing (at first) between the true vigilantes and the KKKesque groups and individuals who have come to be falsely associated with vigilante groups in recent times.

Then the program took an ugly--if somewhat predictable--turn.

It presented with much glee the story of a Japanese exchange student who had wandered off at night, gotten lost and killed. He was apparently in the front yard of a house where he supposedly planned on asking directions. The homeowner was alerted to someone in the front yard and responded reasonably--by taking his gun out and ordering the man to stop.

The story goes that the exchange student "didn't understand" the order and kept coming. The man fired.

Any accidental killing is tragic, and even if the slightly suspect story (I'll comment on that if someone asks) is perfectly true and complete, it serves best as a warning to be careful when wandering around at night, or at least to be hypersensitive to homeowners coming out of their homes with guns and yelling in a foreign language--things that most of us were either told as children or had the great perception to learn on the spot if we ever encountered such a situation. (Which most of us haven't.)

But what did the producers of the TV show do? Unsurprisingly, they gleefully held the story up as an example of why private citizens should not be allowed to have and use guns!

They somehow failed to mention the many vicious and very un-accidental murders that have happened because the homeowners were not armed.

They did report a rather happier story--one in which the bad guy took the bullet and no innocents were harmed--but their commentary was pretty dour and limited.

"What if he had missed and hit a bystander?"

Of course, the police never do that! Notice, the question "what if an armed citizen hadn't been present?" is never asked. That's because we know what happens when an armed citizen isn't present!

Take a look at the evening news, and chances are that you'll see the results of a chronic shortage of armed citizens!

Anybody ever heard the phrase "an armed society is a polite society"? It's true.

The propaganda here is certainly anti Second Amendment, but it is also elitist. "Don't defend yourself...leave it to the 'experts'."

The police are not legally obligated to protect everyone, and they couldn't even if they were.

This is yet another way in which most Americans are all too willing to surrender freedom in exchange for a (false) sense of security, an action which Benjamin Franklin said renders them unfit for either.

Why don't we ever hear about the school shootings that are stopped by citizens with guns? (Roughly 1-2/3 of public school shootings in the past have been.)

Why don't we hear about the abject terror that so many people have suffered--often before they eventually died--because they didn't have a gun handy when they needed one?

Because the truth tends to hurt communist regimes. Freedom isn't too popular with the elitist crowd. They want power. Control over the common swine--by that they mean you and I.

The best way to do that is (and this comes straight from the Comintern--the now vanished organization that was charged years ago with spreading communist rule around the world) is to create "systematic chaos"; to cause society to become terrified of itself--enough so that it would accept an elitist ruling class in the name of "safety" and "security".

It's up to us to take a stand for freedom!

Enough Is Enough!

2006-03-01T09:24:00.000-05:00

Has anyone else been flooded with these obnoxious "Gov Funding--Millions in Grants David Get Your Share" eMails?

Sure, we all get SPAM and we all hate it, but this particular type gets on my nerves more than most.

The problem is that there is some truth to these claims. The government is giving away our hard-earned money to who-knows-who for doing who knows what! (Taking courses, buying a computer, starting a business, or doing nothing at all!)

There are people out there with the gall to promote this kind of theft as if it's a great thing! Imagine what would happen if in the wake of any disaster--Katrina in New Orleans or any other "potential looter" situation--someone started advertising "free stuff; come and get your share!"?

Yet we have people (one in particular who I won't name--you know who I'm talking about) who actually make their living--scratch that--make their fortune by writing books and giving seminars telling us how to rob our fellow Americans through the corrupt government extortion system!

Of course, these folks are probably just following the lead of their politician buddies. Is anyone else fed up with politicians running for re-election and bragging about how much loot they've been able to bring back from the pillaging of America? Oh, I'm sorry--it's called "securing federal funding for local projects"!

Like that bridge to nowhere in Alaska.

Does anyone remember that this is money that has been stolen from hardworking American citizens by an immoral taxation scheme designed to keep corrupt politicians in power? (Primarily by forcing the people to rely on the government for as much as possible, then buying votes: "Elect me and I'll bring more federal money to this state!")

I think it's time that we said "enough's enough! We don't care what party you belong to, if you fail to oppose federal pork of all kinds--including these wonderful government-grants-for-buying-a-car--we will replace you with someone who will!"

It's not "federal" money--it's ours, and it's time that we reminded everyone of that fact!

Government Extortion, Spin, and the Supreme Court, or: A Miscellaneous Collection of Truths

2006-02-14T17:52:00.000-05:00

I was filing my government extortion returns the other day, and I took special notice of the rather obstreperous query into whether I would like to contribute $3 of my tax money to the "presidential campaign fund".

For those of you who never bothered to ask before, this fund was apparently set up so that politicians wouldn't have to rely so much on large corporate donations.

Right!

In case you were wondering, my answer was NO!

The state of Michigan apparently has a similar fund, to which I also did not generously donate the same amount.

Can anyone explain why politicians think that they can get away with trying to use taxpayer money to pay for their campaigns?

Maybe it's because of what they have already gotten away with!

Don't get me wrong; I know that they've been misappropriating funds for years--make that decades. But the reason that they keep doing it is twofold:

First, because they have the power and they like using it!
Have you ever seen what happens to some people when they get into office--even local office like a township board or a planning commission? (PCs, of course, are typically appointed, not elected) All of the sudden, they think that they're so important and that they can now tell everyone else how to run every minute detail of their lives! (And then there are the people who don't even care about getting into office first--they're that way to begin with!)

Second, because they know that it gets them votes!
I don't care which of the two main parties they claim for backing, politicians, with very few exceptions, brag constantly in their campaigns about how much "aid" or "funding" or how many "benefits" they can bring back to their constituents. (Read: PORK!) And we as voters let them get away with it!

Politicians seem to have learned this lesson well: hire a spinmaster who's good enough, and you can get away with just about anything.

"Abridging the freedom of speech and of the press?" Oh nooo, we're "getting the big money out of politics!"

Completely demolishing the checks and balances set up in the Constitution? Nuh-uh! We're "respecting the separation of powers".

Infringing--scratch that--flushing down the toilet "the right of the people to keep and bear arms?" Nope...just "keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals."

And the list keeps going! By the way, on that last one, I do have to acknowledge that the left has one valid point: gun control laws do keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding criminals.
Although I wasn't aware that that particular demographic had ever been a problem, I would argue that the Constitution should probably carry a little more weight than this "compelling governmental interest."

Oh, and that wonderful catch-all phrase that the “supreme” Court loves to wax eloquent (or pseudo-eloquent) over: "compelling governmental interest"!

I can see why they love it so much. It's the perfect excuse to do whatever you want. It's been used, in one language or another, by every tyrant who has ever walked the face of the earth, and it works beautifully.
One of the most famous uses for the "compelling governmental interest" argument, if you recall, occurred around 2000 years ago in the court of Pontius Pilate! What more shining precedent could one desire?

I don't recall this argument being used by the Founding Fathers, however, when they decided that the "laws of nature and of nature's God" trumped King George's "compelling governmental interest."

It's a good thing for the “supreme” Court that God doesn't use that argument!

Well, I guess I've made my point!

I'm going to try to post regularly, although I'm hoping that most of my posts won't be quite so long!

God bless!

Putting Off Procrastination.

2006-02-07T15:10:00.000-05:00

Well, I've thought about starting a blog like this for quite a while now, but for one reason or another, I've chosen to put it off.

I've finally done it!

Of course, I could procrastinate further, but I decided to put that off for now and get around to it later.

Which is as much as to say that my sisters and Mother (and Dad too, for that matter) can now get a kick out of the thought that my passionately held (and often forcefully articulated) views will now make their way onto the World Wide Web. (Which means that from here on out, instead of simply rolling their eyes when I fly into a patriotic rage at some vile assault on American Freedom, they can simply say "go blog it")

I hope that everyone who reads this will leave with something to think about, and that I will succeed here in doing my part to fan back into brilliant existence the "brushfires of freedom in the minds of men"!

God bless!